Youth In Solitary Confinement In Jails And Prisons Across The US

Growing Up Locked Down Youth in Solitary Confinement in Jails and Prisons Across the United States October 10, 2012 The 141-page report is based on research in both US jails and prisons in five states ­– Colorado, Florida, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania – and correspondence with young people in 14 others. The isolation of solitary confinement causes anguish, provokes serious mental and physical health problems, and works against rehabilitation for teenagers, Human Rights Watch and the ACLU found. How Solitary Confinement Harms Youth Psychological Harm rying to Cope Anxiety, Rage, and Insomnia Cutting and Self-Harm Suicidal Thoughts and Attempts: “The death-oriented side of life” Struggling with Mental Disabilities and Past Trauma Barriers to Accessing Care Physical Harm Lack of Adequate Exercise Physical Changes and Stunted Growth Social and Developmental Harm Denial of Family Contact Denial of Adequate Education Struggling with Intellectual Disabilities Failure to Provide for Rehabilitation or Social Development =========== Growing Up In Lock Down —Letter from Kyle B. (pseudonym), from California to Human Rights Watch, May 3, 2012. Every day, in jails and prisons across the United States, young people under the age of 18 are held in solitary confinement.[1] They spend 22 or more hours each day alone, usually in a small cell behind a solid steel door, completely isolated both physically and socially, often for days, weeks, or even months on end. Sometimes there is a window allowing natural light to enter or a view of the world outside cell walls. Sometimes it is possible to communicate by yelling to other inmates, with voices distorted, reverberating against concrete and metal. Occasionally, they get a book or bible, and if they are lucky, study materials. But inside this cramped space, few contours distinguish one hour, one day, week, or one month, from the next. This bare social and physical existence makes many young people feel doomed and abandoned, or in some cases, suicidal, and can lead to serious physical and emotional consequences. Adolescents in solitary confinement describe cutting themselves with staples or razors, hallucinations, losing control of themselves, or losing touch with reality while isolated. They talk about only being allowed to exercise in small metal cages, alone, a few times a week; about being prevented from going to school or participating in any activity that promotes growth or change. Some say the hardest part is not being able to hug their mother or father. The solitary confinement of adults can cause serious pain and suffering and can violate international human rights and US constitutional law. But the potential damage to young people, who do not have the maturity of an adult and are at a particularly vulnerable, formative stage of life, is much greater. Experts assert that young people are psychologically unable to handle solitary confinement with the resilience of an adult. And, because they are still developing, traumatic experiences like solitary confinement may have a profound effect on their chance to rehabilitate and grow. Solitary confinement can exacerbate, or make more likely, short and long-term mental health problems. The most common deprivation that accompanies solitary confinement, denial of physical exercise, is physically harmful to adolescents’ health and well-being. Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union estimate that in 2011, more than 95,000 youth were held in prisons and jails. A significant number of these facilities use solitary confinement—for days, weeks, months, or even years—to punish, protect, house, or treat some of the young people who are held there. Solitary confinement of youth is, today, a serious and widespread problem in the United States. This situation is a relatively recent development. It has only been in the last 30 years that a majority of jurisdictions around the country have adopted various charging and sentencing laws and practices that have resulted in substantial numbers of adolescents serving time in adult jails and prisons. These laws and policies have largely ignored the need to treat young people charged and sentenced as if adults with special consideration for their age, development, and rehabilitative potential. Young people can be guilty of horrible crimes with significant consequences for victims, their families, and their communities. The state has a duty to ensure accountability for serious crimes, and to protect the public. But states also have special responsibilities not to treat young people in ways that can permanently harm their development and rehabilitation, regardless of their culpability. This report describes the needless suffering and misery that solitary confinement frequently inflicts on young people; examines the justifications that state and prison officials offer for using solitary confinement; and offers alternatives to solitary confinement in the housing and management of adolescents. The report draws on in-person interviews and correspondence with more than 125 individuals who were held in jails or prisons while under age 18 in 19 states, and with officials who manage jails or prisons in 10 states, as well as quantitative data and the advice of experts on the challenges of detaining and managing adolescents. This report shows that the solitary confinement of adolescents in adult jails and prisons is not exceptional or transient. Specifically, the report finds that: •Young people are subjected to solitary confinement in jails and prisons nationwide, and often for weeks and months. •When subjected to solitary confinement, adolescents are frequently denied access to treatment, services, and programming adequate to meet their medical, psychological, developmental, social, and rehabilitative needs. •Solitary confinement of young people often seriously harms their mental and physical health, as well as their development. •Solitary confinement of adolescents is unnecessary. There are alternative ways to address the problems—whether disciplinary, administrative, protective, or medical—which officials typically cite as justifications for using solitary confinement, while taking into account the rights and special needs of adolescents. Adult jails and prisons generally use solitary confinement in the same way for adolescents and adults. Young people are held in solitary confinement to punish them when they break the rules, such as those against talking back, possessing contraband, or fighting; they are held in solitary confinement to protect them from adults or from one another; they are held in solitary confinement because officials do not know how else to manage them; and sometimes, officials use solitary confinement to medically treat them. There is no question that incarcerating teenagers who have been accused or found responsible for crimes can be extremely challenging. Adolescents can be defiant, and hurt themselves and others. Sometimes, facilities may need to use limited periods or forms of segregation and isolation to protect young people from other prisoners or themselves. But using solitary confinement harms young people in ways that are different, and more profound, than if they were adults. Many adolescents reported being subjected to solitary confinement more than once while they were under age 18. Forty-nine individuals—more than a third—of the seventy-seven interviewed and fifty with whom we corresponded described spending a total of between one and six months in solitary confinement before their eighteenth birthday. Adolescents spoke eloquently about solitary confinement, and how it compounded the stresses of being in jail or prison—often for the first time—without family support. They talked about the disorientation of finding themselves, and feeling, doubly alone. Many described struggling with one or more serious mental health problems during their time in solitary confinement and of sometimes having difficulty accessing psychological services or support to cope with these difficulties. Some young people, particularly those with mental disabilities (sometimes called psychosocial disabilities or mental illness, and usually associated with long-term mental health problems), struggled more than others. Several young people talked about attempting suicide when in isolation. Adolescents in solitary confinement also experienced direct physical and developmental harm, a consequence of being denied physical exercise or adequate nutrition. Thirty-eight of those interviewed said they had experienced at least one period in solitary confinement when they could not go outside. A few talked about losing weight and going to bed hungry. The report finds that young people in solitary confinement are deprived of contact with their families, access to education and to programming, and other services necessary for their growth, development, and rehabilitation. Twenty-one of the young people interviewed said they could not visit with loved ones during at least one period of solitary confinement. Twenty-five said they spent at least one period of time in solitary confinement during which they were not provided any educational programming at all. Sixteen described sitting alone in their cell for days on end without even a book or magazine to read. But as a number of jail and prison officials recognize, solitary confinement is costly, ineffective, and harmful. There are other means to handle the challenges of detaining and managing adolescents. Young people can be better managed in specialized facilities, designed to house them, staffed with specially trained personnel, and organized to encourage positive behaviors. Punitive schemes can be reorganized to stress immediate and proportionate interventions and to strictly limit and regulate short-term isolation as a rare exception. Solitary confinement of youth is itself a serious human rights violation and can constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under international human rights law. In addition, the conditions that compound the harm of solitary confinement (such as lack of psychological care, physical exercise, family contact, and education) often constitute independent, concurrent, and serious human rights violations. Solitary confinement cannot be squared with the special status of adolescents under US constitutional law regarding crime and punishment. While not unusual, it turns the detention of young people in adult jails and prisons into an experience of unquestionable cruelty. It is time for the United States to abolish the solitary confinement of young people. State and federal lawmakers, as well as other appropriate officials, should immediately embark on a review of the laws, policies, and practices that result in young people being held in solitary confinement, with the goal of definitively ending this practice. Rather than being banished to grow up locked down in isolation, incarcerated adolescents must be treated with humanity and dignity and guaranteed the ability to grow, to be rehabilitated, and to reenter society. http://www.hrw.org/node/110545/section/2 NOTE>> In the United States, and throughout the report, the term ”jail” refers to a facility that generally holds individuals awaiting trial in the criminal justice system or sentenced to less than a year of incarceration; “prison” refers to a facility that generally holds individuals sentenced to one or more years of incarceration. This report uses various terms, including “youth,” “teenagers,” “children,” “young people,” and “adolescents,” interchangeably to refer to youth under the age of 18. Throughout the report, the term “solitary confinement” is used to describe physical and social isolation for 22 to 24 hours per day and for one or more days, regardless of the purpose for which it is imposed. While solitary confinement is apparently used in juvenile facilities on occasion, this report focuses only on its use in adult jails and prisons. Key Recommendations To the US Federal Government and/or State Governments •Prohibit the solitary confinement of youth under age 18. •Prohibit the housing of adolescents with adults, or in jails and prisons designed to house adults. •Strictly limit and regulate all forms of segregation and isolation of young people. •Monitor and report on the segregation and isolation of adolescents. •Ratify human rights treaties protecting young people without reservations. To Read More Of This Report Go >> http://www.hrw.org/node/110545/section/3

In Memory Of Ashley Smith

Behind the Wall
With guards watching and a video camera rolling, Ashley Smith slowly choked herself to death in a federal prison on Oct. 19, 2007. How could this tragic turn of events have happened? And what does it tell us about the way mentally ill inmates are treated in a prison system that was once the envy of the world? With the inquest into Ashley Smith’s death set to begin, the fifth estate has obtained critical videotape footage that shows Smith’s time in prison and brings unique insight into the full extent of this tragedy.

Convicted at only 15 years of age, Ashley Smith’s original 30-day sentence stretched to four years and included 17 separate transfers by Corrections Canada within a year. In the most in-depth examination of her tragic story yet, the fifth estate also examines the little-known 114 days she spent in early 2007 at the Regional Psychiatric Centre (RPC) in Saskatoon. The only psychiatric hospital in the country with a therapeutic healing program designed for women offenders, RPC had Smith locked in segregation after clashing with guards and staff. Shocking revelations come from former nurses, one social worker and a former warden, all of whom stepped forward to share their stories for the first time.

One tip received by the fifth estate led the team to another seriously at-risk RPC inmate whose story is also told as part of the broadcast.

Hana Gartner takes a look at the troubled life that Ashley Smith led behind bars and the sad circumstances surrounding her death.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2010-2011/behindthewall/

Uphold 13-year-old Jordan Brown's Constitutional Rights.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/308203
Petition asks attorney general to uphold Jordan Brown's rights

A new petition asks Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly to uphold 13-year-old Jordan Brown's constitutional rights.
The petition, which is duplicated on two separate websites, outlines the ways in which Jordan Brown's constitutional rights have been violated since his introduction into the American justice system over two years ago. Earlier this year, the Pennsylvania Superior Court overheard arguments that Judge Motto failed to recognize Jordan's Fifth Amendment right regarding self-incrimination when he refused to waive the child's case to juvenile court on the grounds that Jordan had not confessed to the murders of Kenzie Houk and her unborn son. Jordan has maintained his innocence since his arrest in 2009 when he was 11 years old.
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/308203#ixzz1PzF2GFf6

Juveniles Raped In Adult Prison Face 'Death Sentence' of HIV

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Brief History Of Juvenile Laws

A Brief History of Juvenile Court
Juvenile Courts were conceived at the turn of the century to end the long-standing practice of trying (and imprisoning) children side by side with adult criminals. There were two reasons for this. There was the commonsense legal theory that children ought not bear the same statutory responsibility as grown-ups because of their immaturity (psychological, emotional and developmental). And there was growing public sentiment that punishing children in the same way as adult criminals was immoral, an opinion fueled by media coverage of harsh and inhumane treatment of children in state penitentiaries — and occasionally on death row.

The original juvenile courts were informal civil tribunals. The accused were no longer called criminals or defendants facing trial and sentence — they were “delinquents” facing “adjudication” and “disposition,” giving rise to an entire system of euphemism that persists to this day. This supposed removal of stigmatizing labels (along with closing hearings to the public) was intended to protect children. But it also permitted the removal of any meaningful scrutiny of the works of the juvenile court, along with most of the constitutional and legal protections commonly enjoyed in adult criminal court. In the new system, children were not entitled to legal representation, nor were prosecutors on hand to represent the interests of the state and public safety. Usually, a juvenile court judge (many of whom had little or no legal training) would confer with the equivalent of a social worker, then decide how best to deal with a wayward child. In most jurisdictions, there were no transcripts, no formal presentations of evidence, no cross-examination of witnesses, and no right of appeal. The intent of all this was to remove procedural and legal obstacles, so that the court could quickly move in to protect a child in danger. The result juvenile justice system, however — as the U.S. Supreme Court noted in a landmark 1967 opinion, In Re Gault — was often little more than a kangaroo court with unlimited power over children and families. The lack of scrutiny left the system open to horrendous abuses and whims. Gerry Gault, for instance, was sentenced to up to seven years in a youth prison for a prank phone call. So the high court scrapped the informal nature of juvenile justice, one in a series of rulings that ultimately conferred all the same legal rights on juveniles as adults possess (except for the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers, for obvious reasons).

Once again, a laudable intent — protecting childrens’ rights — did not produce the desired result. Today’s juvenile courts focus most of their energy on legal ritual — proving or disproving charges, litigating the constitutionality of searches and confessions, maintaining the papery machinery of justice with its appetite for subpoenas, warrants, motions and writs. In other words, the unanticipated result of the Supreme Court’s Gault decision was to shift the focus of Juvenile Court from the child to the facts of the crime the child committed. Only after the legal issues are dealt with, after many weeks, months, or sometimes years pass, does the court belatedly turn its attention toward what should be done to help a child — far too late in many cases. The child’s rights are protected, but the child is not. And given the fact that most accused juveniles remain free while their cases slowly pass through the system, society is not protected, either.

The problems inherent in this shift in focus are now coming to a head as youth violence has reached crisis proportions. In recent years, with juveniles increasingly responsible for major and violent crimes, public sentiment in support of a separate justice system for children has been waning, replaced by frustration at the system’s inability to quickly and resolutely deal with out-of-control delinquents. This frustration has led many jurisdictions to shift more resources into monitoring and incarcerating the most serious juvenile offenders for longer periods of time. This has had a paradoxical effect: Fewer resources are left to deal with minor, younger offenders — those youths most amenable to rehabilitation, and the ones juvenile court was originally designed to help. Instead, these kids on the cusp are largely ignored — until they commit more serious offenses. Only then, when they are hardened offenders unlikely to reform, do we throw time and money at them — too late for them, too late for their crime victims.

This self-defeating trend is now being carried to its logical extreme — the wholesale dismantling of major portions of the juvenile court system, as state after state has passed laws allowing many juveniles to be tried and sentenced as adults. Championed as a reform, this practice is actually a throwback to the Nineteenth Century, when a criminal was a criminal, no matter his or her age.

In 1980, every state kept its youth criminals in juvenile court.

http://www.edwardhumes.com/articles/juvhist.shtml

Appeal Impacts Parole Eligibility for Juveniles Convicted of Capital Murder Under

http://www.law. com/jsp/tx/ PubArticleTX. jsp?id=120247187 4432

September 13, 2010

A Minor Issue: Appeal Impacts Parole Eligibility for Juveniles Convicted of Capital Murder Under Old Law

By Mary Alice Robbins | Texas Lawyer

Chris Meadoux, who turns 20 on Oct. 1, is serving life in prison without the possibility of parole for slaying two people in 2007 when he was 16 years old. If Meadoux had committed the murders this year, he would have a chance at parole after serving 40 years behind bars because he committed the crime as a minor. However, Meadoux killed the pair before the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 839 in 2009.

Texas' position on permitting parole eligibility for juveniles convicted of capital murder has changed over the years. Prior to 2005, juveniles who committed capital murder could receive the death penalty or a life sentence with the possibility of parole after 40 years. But in 2005, the Texas Legislature changed that law to say all capital offenders could never be released from prison, according to the Senate Research Center's analysis of S.B. 839.

Then in 2009, lawmakers changed their mind and passed S.B. 839, eliminating the sentence of life without parole for juveniles certified to be tried as adults for capital murder. The bill took effect on Sept. 1, 2009, but does not apply retroactively.

According to information provided by Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokesman Jason Clarke, Meadoux is one of 20 juvenile offenders serving life without parole in this state. Houston criminal-defense solo Brian Wice says there are 19, because an appellate court recently remanded the case of one of his clients for a new trial.

In Meadoux v. State , a case of first impression, Cheves Ligon, of counsel at the Bexar County Appellate Public Defender's Office, will argue on Meadoux's behalf Sept. 15 before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. He will try to persuade the court that sentencing a juvenile to life without the chance of parole constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Noting that Meadoux was 16 at the time of the murders, Ligon says, "Someone who was this age when he committed an offense . . . is not developed enough as a person to act with such a degree of culpability that we should place him in jail until he dies."

Referring to the young people now serving life without parole, Bexar County First Assistant Criminal District Attorney Cliff Herberg says, "The juries heard the cases and decided that was the appropriate sentence."

Herberg says the Legislature could have chosen to make S.B. 839 retroactive, but it didn't.

"It's possible the Legislature was quite aware of these cases and decided to let the jury verdicts stand," he says.

But state Sen. Juan Hinojosa, D-McAllen, a solo and author of the bill, says, "It was an oversight. In this type of situation, my intent would have been to make the law applicable to this case."

State Rep. Jim McReynolds, D-Lufkin, House sponsor of S.B. 839, says it was not the Legislature' s intent that juveniles convicted of capital murder before the bill took effect should serve life in prison with no chance for parole.

"That was not the intent of where we are going," McReynolds says.
Cruel and Unusual?

San Antonio's 4th Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's judgment in Meadoux on Dec. 9, 2009, provides the following background on the case: On Jan. 24, 2007, firefighters found two bodies in a locked bedroom at the scene of a house fire. Luis Martinez's and Johnny You's bodies each had two gunshot wounds to the head and a neck laceration. Fire investigators determined the blaze was set intentionally.

When detectives questioned him at the police station, Meadoux initially said he was not involved in the deaths. But Meadoux subsequently said he accidentally committed the murders when he and You fought over a gun and it discharged. Meadoux said he set the fire to cover up the killings.

Authorities arrested Meadoux in August 2007 and certified him to be tried as an adult. After a trial, the jury returned a general verdict, finding Meadoux guilty of capital murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole, the automatic sentence at that time.

Among other things in his appeal to the 4th Court, Meadoux challenged Texas' sentencing scheme of automatic life without parole for a juvenile convicted of capital murder. The 4th Court, which ruled against Meadoux on all of his issues, concluded that the Texas sentencing scheme does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment

Justice Phylis Speedlin wrote for the 4th Court, "Given that the legislature chose not to apply the parole eligibility amendment retroactively to juveniles who have already been sentenced for a capital murder, it would not be appropriate for the court to 'judicially amend' the statute." Justices Rebecca Simmons and Steven Hilbig joined in the opinion.

The CCA website shows that Meadoux filed his petition for discretionary review with the CCA Feb. 2, and the court granted review March 24.

In his single ground for review, Meadoux argues that the 4th Court erred in finding that, in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence and statutory changes, a juvenile's sentence of life without parole is constitutional.

Meadoux argues in his brief to the CCA that in determining what is impermissibly "cruel and unusual," the Eighth Amendment takes into account in its proportionality analysis the characteristics of those convicted. In 2002's Atkins v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the death penalty was impermissibly cruel and unusual when applied to the mentally retarded, Meadoux notes in the brief.

According to Meadoux's brief, in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court found compelling reasons to hold the death penalty unconstitutional as applied to juveniles. Meadoux points out that in Roper v. Simmons ,the Supreme Court determined that juveniles lack maturity and possess an underdeveloped sense of responsibility, have greater susceptibility to peer pressure, and are still creatures in flux who are not yet fully formed.

The state argues in its brief to the CCA that Meadoux failed to present his complaint regarding the constitutionality of the sentencing scheme at trial and therefore waived it on appeal.

In its brief, the state also notes that, although the U.S. Supreme Court "factored age in the gross disproportionality analysis" in May 17's Graham v. Florida, the court restricted its holding.

In its 6-3 decision in Graham , the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishments clause does not permit a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole for a nonhomicide offense.

With regard to Texas' life-without- parole sentencing scheme for juveniles convicted of capital murder, Herberg says. "We feel like we're well within the holding in Graham. "

Wice says if the CCA finds that the Eighth Amendment prevents life-without- parole sentences for juveniles, Meadoux would be eligible, upon request to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, for commutation of his sentence to life.

Wice represents Litrey Demond Turner, who originally was sentenced to life without parole for capital murder. Houston's 1st Court Appeals remanded Turner's case for a new trial in July 30's Turner v. State. Turner was 15 years old at the time he allegedly committed his crime. [See "1st Court overturns conviction of prisoner who allegedly committed capital murder at age 15," Tex Parte blog, Aug. 3, 2010]

If the CCA rules against Meadoux, he still might have a chance at parole after he serves 40 years. Hinojosa says he plans to file a bill in 2011 that will clarify his intent in S.B. 839.

Notes Hinojosa, "I want to make it clear that this law is retroactive. "
- - - - -
Mary Alice Robbins is on Twitter at www.twitter. com/maryarobbins .

Juvenils Do Not Get Fair Treatment Nor Have Any Rights

Juveniles No Longer Have Rights:



Under prop/21 Prosecutors no longer have to ask permission from
juvenile judges to send juveniles accused of certain serious felonies
straight to adult court leaving juvenile courts & judges out of the
juvenile proceedings.This has contributed to a large decline of youth
offenders from California youth authority and more into adult
court.Youth offenders charged as adults get longer sentences some
getting life without parole.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++It is time for
America to leave an overly punitive, counterproductive approach to
juvenile justice behind. But an improved system must address all of
the factors that cause delinquent and criminal behavior and provide
reliable avenues for rehabilitation. Only broad, concerted strategies
will bring lasting solutions. Jonathan F. FantonChicago, Aug. 20,
2008The writer is president, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation._____________________________________Under Welfare and
Institutions code 707(a) a juvenile judge must evaluate:>>1>the
degree of criminal sophistication is exhibited by your child2>whether
your child can be rehabilitated before juvenile court jurisdiction
expires3>your childs previous deliquent history4>the success of
previous attempts by juvenile court to rehabilitate your child5>the
circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged to have been
committed by your child____________________________________The
prosecutor can and they do every day,direct file against a juvenile,
thus taking these and all juvenile rights away from the minor.Given
their developmental imatureity, and encapacety to understand the
trial process, assist their attorneys, and make decisions that will
effect them for the rest of their lives, adolescents can not assit
adequately in their defense. Their incomplete development jeopardizes
the fundamental fairness of the ajudicative process.They truely are
not competent to stand trial. Defendants must be competant to stand
trial, having suffficient present ability to consult with their
attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding,as well
as a factual understanding of the proceedings against them.This
includes making decisions about the waiver of important rights.If a
defendant is found incapable of making these decisions at any time
during the legal process from arraignment to adjudication and
sentencing,then the waiver of the constitutional rights during this
process may be invalidated.
---------------------------My comment>>
In my dealings with the law & courts in calif. The less a child
understands, the more isolated the police~ Da~& Courts make them.Taking away all their rights along with the parents.California is trying to do away with the juvenile system as much as possible, charging the kids as adults, charging them with crimes more serious then they commited gets them into the prison system for indefinite
amount of time: ( They sentence someone to 25-life) Going in front of the parole board only to be denied. Juveniles In california have no rights, our goverment has made up its own laws & rules in which to follow.





-